Sunday, October 25, 2015

Pax Germania vs. Pax Islamia

In the 1994 TV movie, Fatherland, Germany is depicted as having won World War II, at least on the European continent, which now has been consolidated into a single political entity, Germania, or the Greater German Reich, stretching  from the Mediterranean to Finland (see a summary of the story here).

In April 1964, Germania is preparing to celebrate Hitler’s 75th birthday. By 1964 standards, Berlin looks prosperous and completely rebuilt after the failed Allied bombing. A former German U-Boat commander, played by Rutger Hauer, now is a top detective in the criminal division of an SS that resembles a uniformed FBI. He investigates a murder which ultimately leads to his discovery of a cover-up of the Nazi “final solution”: that all the Jews were exterminated, though the government maintains the fiction that they were all “resettled” in Russian territory conquered from the U.S.S.R.

At the same time, Hitler has persuaded President Joseph P. Kennedy to pay a “reconciliation” call in Germania and meet with him. The discovery of the “resettlement” fiction and of a series of murders of the Nazis responsible for the Holocaust would squelch any amicable relations between the U.S. and Germania. The still operative Gestapo goes to work to silence anyone who would be able to jeopardize that “peace process,” beginning with the murders of all the Nazi higher-ups who took part in the Wannsee Conference. All these men had to die because they otherwise could have spilled the beans to the Americans about what really happened to the Jews – or at least blackmailed the Nazi government.

I have watched the TV movie and read Robert Harris’s 1992 novel  on which the  TV movie is loosely based. They both err in several key ways in the “alternative history” genre, and the storylines of the novel and the movie also diverge at critical points. But two aspects of both the novel and the movie, however, I found incredible even as projected “alternative histories.” They are, first, that the U.S.S.R. would have survived long enough to fight Hitler in a guerilla war in Eastern Russia clear up to 1964; in fact, it survived thanks to the aid FDR sent it, often at the expense of equipping our own forces during WWII; and, second, that Joseph P. Kennedy would have been very rattled and outraged by the discovery that the Nazis had actually sent all the European Jews “up in smoke.”

After all, it was his belief that if the Nazis could not be appeased enough and if war broke out, the Jews were to be blamed, consequently scuttling plans to develop pacific relations and commercial ties with Nazi Germany. Kennedy also hated the British, but that’s another story.

Those caveats were in the way of wading into the subject, not of Pax Germania, but of Pax Islamia.

Apparently Germany – and also Europe – is to be dominated and policed, not by clean-cut, close-shaven, neatly-outfitted by Hugo Boss, Führer-saluting Nazi brutes, but instead by not so clean, slovenly garbed, bearded, fist-shaking, Shahada-reciting Allah-worshipping brutes. Or by Muslims, whose immigrating cousins and nephews are already being called by native Germans and others “Nazis” because of their behavior and airs of superiority over native non-Muslims. The symbiosis between Nazi and Islamic ideologies has been well-documented, so this startling reversal of events should not come as a surprise to anyone.

Angela Merkel’s plan to “unify” Europe vis-à-vis the resettling throughout Europe, by force or by extortion or by naked property expropriation, the uncounted hundreds of thousands of “refugees,” “asylum-seekers,” and other migrants from the Mideast, Africa, and other pestholes, bears strong similarities to Hitler’s plans for Europe. Had Hitler won the war, or at least have emerged from it via a cease-fire or truce, he would have been able to follow his plan of Lebensraum, or to create (or seize) more “living space” for Germans.

Now, because of that symbiosis between Nazism and Islamism or Islamic supremacist doctrine, I don’t think it’s too ironic that Merkel wishes to turn the tables and be the enabler of the Muslim Brotherhood’s general plan for conquering Europe (and the U.S.) by finding more “living space” for Muslims, and mandating it through the European Union.

It’s not for nothing that Geert Wilders compared Hitler’s Mein Kampf with the Koran.

The British Guardian, a left-leaning newspaper, carried in spite of itself a detailed, accurate description of how Merkel want to provide Lebensraum (in Arabic, مساحة المعيشة) to the Muslims, in Ian Traynor’s October 23rd article, Germany to push for compulsory EU quotas to tackle refugee crisis.”

Germany is to push for more ambitious and extensive common European Union policies on the refugee crisis, according to policymakers in Berlin, with compulsory and permanent quotas for sharing the distribution of probably hundreds of thousands of people who will arrive directly from the Middle East.

Also on Berlin’s agenda are new European powers replacing some national authority over border control, and the possible raising of a special EU-wide levy to fund the policies.

“Push” was the right verb to use. Chancellor Merkel, as head of Europe’s largest and most prosperous nation, can be pushy. But, if Germany is willing to make itself miserable by welcoming hundreds of thousands of welfare-seekers, the misery must be spread around. It’s only fair that others suffer, as well.

Angela Merkel appears determined to prevail, as she grapples with a crisis that will likely define her political legacy. The German chancellor is said to be angry with the governments of eastern and central Europe which are strongly opposed to being forced to take in refugees. She is said to resent that these EU member states are pleading for “solidarity” against the threats posed by EU government leaders agreed last month to share responsibility for 160,000 asylum seekers already in the EU, redistributing them from Greece and Italy over two years.

But the decision had to be pushed to a majority vote, overruling the dissenters, mainly in eastern Europe, and with the Hungarian prime minister, Viktor Orban, accusing Merkel of “moral imperialism.” It is highly unusual in the EU for sensitive issues with such deep national political impact to be settled by majority voting. But Berlin appears prepared to do this if no consensus can be reached.

The dissenters had to be overruled, especially those who don’t wish to see their countries despoiled by hordes of barbarians prone to riot, rape and robbery. Imperialism? Eastern Europeans have already had a taste of German and Soviet imperialism, so they can't be blamed for not wanting another round of it.

The opponents of quotas insist last month’s decision was a one-off. But according to policymakers in Berlin, Merkel now wants to go further, shifting the emphasis of burden-sharing from redistribution of refugees inside the EU to those collecting en masse in other countries, notably Turkey, where more than 2 million Syrians are being hosted.

Under one proposal being circulated in Berlin, the EU would strike pacts with third countries, such as Turkey, agreeing to take large but unspecified numbers of refugees from them directly into Europe. In return, the third country would need to agree on a ceiling or a cap for the numbers it can send to Europe and commit to keeping all other migrants and refugees, and accommodate them humanely. This effectively means Europe would be financing large refugee camps in those third countries, which will also be obliged to take back any refugees who are not granted asylum in Europe.

Turkey? The same Turkey run by Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, an Islamic supremacist who dreams of a new Ottoman Empire, who proclaimed that "Mosques are our barracks, minarets our bayonets, domes our helmets, the believers our soldiers"? Yes, that authoritarian tyrant. Birds of a feather, indeed.

Merkel returned from talks on the issue with the Turkish leadership on Sunday seemingly convinced that Ankara was the key to her winning some relief on the toxic immigration issue. She is being criticized for ignoring human rights problems in her dealings with Turkey’s authoritarian leader, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. But according to people familiar with her thinking, she has concluded that, in terms of Turkey, the main third country source of migrants heading for Europe, interests trump values.

Principles? Values? They can be dispensed with. Turkey has always wanted to become part of the European Union and what better way to join it than striking a deal with the Crazy Kraut Kaffir? Shades of the Molotov–Ribbentrop “non-aggression pact” of 1939! An inconvenient historical fact that Merkel doubtless doesn’t choose to remember.

The plans being developed in Berlin and Brussels also include moves to “Europeanize” control of the EU’s external borders. This would entail national governments surrendering some of their powers on those frontiers and granting at least some authority over refugee admissions, detentions and deportation to EU bodies such as Frontex, the fledgling borders agency.

Some senior diplomats and officials in Brussels say this is an intrusion into national sovereignty which will be difficult for some governments to accept. Policymakers in Berlin are aware of the sensitivities, but appear of a mind to proceed by stealth in small steps.

There is always lots of play in a noose before it’s tightened around one’s neck. The trick is to tighten it slowly, so as not to alarm the victim and cause him to gag beforehand. And the noose’s knot must be a silken, Europeanized knot, the kind with which the British used to hang their aristocrats. Delusions among European leaders are the panacea of the day. Merkel can’t really mean it! Oh, but she does.

Forced to bow to the sharing of 160,000 refugees last month, several EU leaders took the view that this was a limited and temporary move that would not be repeated. But for Berlin, it is but a beginning in the formulation of pan-European asylum and immigration policies.

On Wednesday Juncker called a Brussels summit for Sunday for some EU and Balkan leaders to tackle the crisis in Croatia, Slovenia, and Austria since Hungary closed its borders to those arriving in the EU from Turkey and Greece via the Balkans.

The German push for taking people directly from places such as Turkey has the merit of cutting out of many of the smuggling rackets prospering from the mass movements and reducing the numbers of those risking the hazardous journeys from the Middle East to the borders of Europe. But it is far from clear that the plan to persuade third-country governments to agree to enforce a ceiling on the numbers allowed to go to the EU can work.

And, here comes the tax to pay for the noose and the executioner.

According to the thinking in Berlin, if the new package of policies must involve a European solution rather than a mish-mash of national strategies, it will also have to be financed at the European level, possibly through a special levy, since the billions involved would blow a gaping hole in the existing EU budget and national governments would balk at footing the bills.

Daniel Greenfield, in Sultan Knish, writes that Germany and other members of the EU want to retain their welfare states and eat the Muslims, too.  In his brutally frank assessment of the future of Europe, “The Death of Europe” of October 23rd, he remarks:

European leaders talk about two things these days; preserving European values by taking in Muslim migrants and integrating Muslim migrants into Europe by getting them to adopt European values.

It does not occur to them that their plan to save European values depends on killing European values.

That’s because Islamic values are diametrically opposite of European ones. Even the bad European ones, such as the Uncle Otto pays-for-everything welfare state including everyone’s retirement plans, which include those of Muslims who never paid anything into the system and never intended to.

Europe invested in the values of its welfare state. The Muslim world invested in large families. Europe expects the Muslim world to bail out its shrinking birth rate by working and paying into the system so that its aging population can retire. The Muslim migrants however expect Europe to subsidize their large families with its welfare state while they deal some drugs and chop off some heads on the side….

The European values that require Europe to commit suicide are about ideology, not language, culture or nationhood. But the incoming migrants don’t share that ideology. They have their own Islamic values.

Why should 23-year-old Mohammed work for four decades so that Hans or Fritz across the way can retire at 61 and lie on a beach in Mallorca? The idea that Mohammed would ever want to do such a thing out of love for Europe was a silly fantasy that European governments fed their worried citizens.

And now those same citizens are witnessing the fantasy colliding with reality. Greenfield’s essay on why Europe has doomed itself ought to win some kind of journalistic award. But it won't. Greenfield concludes:

Islamic values are not compatible with European values. Not only free speech and religious freedom, but even the European welfare state is un-Islamic. Muslims have a high birth rate because their approach to the future is fundamentally different from the European one….

Europe is drinking rat poison to cure a cold. Instead of changing its values, it’s trying to maintain them by killing itself. The Mohammed retirement plan won’t save European Socialism.

It will bury it.

And Europe, as well. All that will be left will be ashes, ruins, and corpses underfoot of millions of Muslims looking for a new place to “migrate.”

The United States.


Steve Jackson said...

Ed, I believe it was here or on that I read an article that Mohammedan ministers are telling their flocks in Europe that there is no obligation to work and that living off welfare is morally permissible as kind of a back door Jizya. So the idea that Muslims are going to rescue Europe's welfare state is far-fetched.

Edward Cline said...

Steve Jackson: No, they're not going to Europe to rescue the welfare states. Greenfield explains that fact quite well in his "The Death of Europe" column. And, as I remarked in my column. the European leaders who think Muslims want to shore up their welfare states are quite delusional.

madmax said...

The same thing applies in America. Stephan Mollyneaux just posted some awesome data rich videos of immigration both in America and in Europe. His recent immigration and welfare video was absolutely depressing. Immigrants are leeches as a group and all immigrant groups are anti-liberty, even Asians. I strongly recommend Stephan's videos. Even though is a free market anarchist, he offers tremendous intellectual value in his podcasts. Far more than organized Objectivism.

Yaron Brook and Onkar Ghate recently discussed immigration. Besides the low hanging fruit of economics they misrepresented everything else and their information was wrong. They ignore the accumulated data. Not to mention that at the end of that podcast they have what can only be described as a religious Messianic view of America as owing every immigrant with a dream right of entry. I can see why so many Conservatives view Objectivists and libertarians as delusional utopians. I don't think being pro-liberty needs to be that way but you can see why that view persists when you listen to two open border advocates ignore pretty much all of accumulated human experience in favor of what more closely resembles a religion than of a logic driven public policy.

Steve Jackson said...


I listened to the show and couldn't believe it. Ghate and Brook get the facts wrong and misrepresent the transmigration restrictionist arguments.

For example, the claim by restrictionists is that Hispanic immigrants vote leftist because they have been voting that way even before immigration became an issue, that they poll left on issue after issue, they voted for Democrats in higher numbers after Reagan signed an amnesty in 87, etc. Since I (and I assume others) have pointed this out to Brook many times, his claim that Hispanics don't vote Republican because of Republican "xenophobia" is disingenuous to say the least.

Brook actually said that if the USA were free, we wouldn't have to be concerned if 10 immigrants arrived for every American. That's 3 billion mostly 3d worlders. He said that we could "convert" (!) these people and if you don't believe that, you lack self esteem. Life is short and I don't have time to convert 10 non-English speakers to the value of Capitalism. My Spanish is rusty and I can't speak Bengahli, Amharic or who knows what.

If I can't convert my white friends that you should have the right not to bake a cake for a wedding you don't approve of, I seriously doubt that I can convert Ethiopians to belief that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was wrong and that Shelley v. Cramer was judicial activism.

But none of this matters to Brook, although he things the consequences of open immigration for Israel would be disastrous. For the rest of us it's "to the gas chambers go."

madmax said...


I was shocked too. How could they have not seen or listened to Stephan Mollyneaux's videos by now? That type of information is readily available. Do they live in that small a bubble? That imo is not honest error. But what did you think of Onkar Ghate's view of America at the end of that interview? He said that a poor Guatemalan with a dream has one and only one life and if you deny him entry into America "how can he not hate you?" (you evil white bastard, although he left that implied part out). And thus, America is the place where everyone should come to fulfill their dreams, even Ethiopians, a people Onkar mentioned numerous times indicating that Onkar has no awareness of black IQ rates or any of the pathologies of black populations. He is totally clueless about anything outside philosophy and seems on board with the Left's goal of changing the racial demographics of America by importing as many non-whites as possible.

It seems to me that they (and pretty much all O'ists) approach Objectivism as a religion, with America having a Messianic duty to be "a light unto nations" and "a beacon of hope to all people of the world". This strikes me as more religion than philosophy. It actually strikes me as altruistic. Ed Powell in the discussion at Amy Peikoff's blog said that Objectivism has no developed political science. That has become real to me. I just reread Rand's essays on politics and while I think she has some sound meta-principles there I realized how incomplete her writings were if your goal was a fully articulated political theory. The "Objectivist politics" is at this point nothing more than scaffolding.

It seems that they treat "the non-initiation of physical force" as a mystic primary (even though they say it is not an axiom). But while the NIOF is important, it too is just scaffolding that needs to be filled out. No one has done that. The typical O'ist will say that if I own a business and I am an American then I should be able to contract with Ethiopians or Guatemalans or anyone so long as they don't have infectious diseases or are criminals or are "enemy combatants". And that's the extent of the limitations. To me that is woefully inadequate not to mention suicidal. It is a view that can be described as "atomistic individualism". An individual is not an island, he lives as part of a group, in this case a nation. What one person does can have negative consequences for the entire nation. The NIOF is one consideration but it has parameters which I have seen no one attempt to flush out. In that way, the Objectivist politics is incomplete at best (and might even be flawed at worst, at least as stated).

I don't want to trash Objectivism because I still respect its better elements and its the reason I am not a Leftist which I will always be thankful for. But I see that the Objectivist movement is fully in thrall to philosophic rationalism. IMO because they refuse to consider human nature and specifically race and heredity as well as female sexual psychology; ie all the things the alt-right are considering. But sadly the alt-right has some really crappy philosophic ideas. Even a brilliant polemicist like Larry Auster was at root a Christian Platonist who denied evolution. The best philosophic foundation I can find in the alt-right is Libertarian Realist (a former Randian). Mollyneaux is good as well despite the anarchism. I would love to see Yaron or Onkar debate Stephan on these issues. But you know they won't because he would make them look bad. He's light years beyond them in terms of empirical knowledge and the bio-realist framework needed to deal with the deeper issues of politics.

madmax said...

Just saw this:

Reading his comments is difficult. He could never be convinced of any position that considers the importance of maintaining European populations as a value. And he knows that Hispanics vote Left but he doesn't care. He still thinks they have a right to come here. He even uses the Jews as an intimidation tactic.

He's unlikeable.

Steve Jackson said...

Ghate also implied that there would be some eschatological judgment bt the diversity gods if we don't allow massive immigration. If you have a government that restricts immigration or has ideological screening, you will end up with a government that persecutes its citizens prevents them from leaving, etc. The Naturalization Act of 1790 (or whatever it's called) established the USA as a free, European, Republic. We wound up with the freest and most prosperous nation that ever existed.

I read the FB posts you referenced. Yaron will never talk about how much third world or Hispanic immigration we should allow nor why he doesn't want to impose open immigration on Europe.

On one of the posts Yaron implied that the ARI's official position is open immigration. That should be reason enough to stop supporting it.

Steve Jackson said...

Really, I don't get Brook. He admits that Hispanics vote left. He doesn't deny that they do so because they are leftist. But for some reason, it's all the Republicans fault.

Texas doesn't have an income tax and has laws (I imagine) that are supportive of the 2d Amendment. Does Brook seriously deny that Texas will wind up with an income tax when Hispanics become a political majority?

This is the larger part of the open immigration problem. Mexicans, Somalians or whatever 3d worlders make their country hell holes. But when the come to the US, the border has some transformative property?

Edward Cline said...

Steve Jackson: Maybe Brook is a Star Wars fan, and believes in the power of the "Force." Wishing will make it so. Just want hard enough that that torpedo to go down the vent hole and blow up the Death Star, and it will happen. I haven't kept track of the debate on Facebook, but did the race issue come up, vis-a-vis the Teddy Kennedy inspired racial quota established that favors "people of color" and not Europeans wanting to emigrate to the U.S. to escape their cannibal welfare systems?

Steve Jackson said...

Ed: They are dancing around the issue of our once European culture. Funny, on the most recent Brook show he had an ARI guy (Svandberg) from Sweden who pointed out that there is "white flight" out of Sweden. Wonder why.

Brook said this:

Politics in ILL is worst than CA and few immigrants. In Texas, lots of immigrants and some, not much, better politics. CA is left because that is what the people who count in the culture are -- intellectuals, journalists, entrepreneurs...

Well, ILL (I assume he means Illinois) has massive immigration (particularly Hispanics in Cook County) which has turned it into a largely Democratic state (Dem super majorities in both houses, last I read). Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see a big push for higher taxes and restricting guns in Texas like you see in Illinois.

madmax said...

The Svandberg interview was interesting. At least I learned something unlike the Onkar interview where all I learned is that organized Objectivism is a delusional utopian movement. But the podcast on Sweden was informative, although I've learned similar material from Mollyneaux and from some of the alt-right blogs. TRS ( a white identarian site) linked to a really excellent podcast on Scandinavia. They had guys from Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland and they broke down exactly what the Left is doing in each country. They outlined all the major political parties and what they stand for. The sad thing is that there really is no political party in Scandinavia that is libertarian oriented. They're all socialists, even their right wingers.

But the economic discussion on the Brook podcast was useful. Brook's better point is that Scandinavia (and all of Europe) has a baseline semi-socialist system that they hover around; sometimes to the Left, sometimes to the right. But no true pro-liberty advocacy is possible. But what they didn't get into (but what the alt-right guys did get into) was the racial issue and the country's demographics and how that might change things (they even got into Anders Breivik and the Left's surprising non-response to him). Also, funny thing about Sweden. Apparently some in the government are sort of trolling the Arabs and Somalis. They are locating them outside of the big cities in really cold places. Many of these blacks and Arabs who were expecting to get the freebies in Stockholm (where all the white womyn at!) are now going to freeze their ass off in the middle of nowhere. The same thing is going to happen in Germany. Good, let them freeze. Why would equatorial people want to live in the north anyway (yeah I know the answer).

The failure of the Objectivist movement to recognize Arab and all Muslim immigration into Europe as an invasion that could eventually destroy European civilization is one of the more deplorable elements of Organized O'ism. That's the problem with describing civilization as "Western Civilization". Its better described as European civilization. If you frame it that way you understand how indispensable Europeans are to the civilization they have built. But once again the problem of runaway universalism rears its ugly head. You know I wonder if in the end Objectivism isn't yet another case of secularized Christianity. (Moldbug's thesis) "We are all one", "brotherhood of man", "we are all god's children" (although without god), etc. Listening to Onkar, that eschatological vibe Steve mentioned, I get the sense that I was listening to a sermon. And this from atheist philosophers no less. Interesting.